Delay to Enactment Date of N.H. Shoreland Protection Act Ammendment?

According to an article in the Laconia Citizen, the enactment date of a long-heralded (by environmentalists, anyway) enhancement to the state’s Shoreland Protection Act may be pushed back from April 1 to July 1 if an amendment before the state Senate passes.

The amendment was proposed after waterfront landowners and builders were worried that the sate Department of Environmental Services (DES) is still finalizing specific details of the new Shoreland Protection Act with April 1 just around the corner, the Citizen reported.

Naturally, this delay most radically impacts Lake Winnipesaukee, the state’s largest lake with approximately 288 miles of shoreline and officially 253 islands (local lore says there is an island for every day of the year if you include some rocky “up-croppings”).

As I have mentioned previously on this blog, my family has owned a place on one of Winnipesaukee’s islands for decades and I have been spending summer weekends there my entire life. We have kept our place largely the same as it was when my family ran the property as a parent’s camp, only cutting down trees when they were dead or posed a significant safety or property damage threat and allowing the wild berry bushes and other natural trees and plants that propagate the shoreline to grow at will.

Unfortunately, far too many summer cabins have been demolished and replaced by large mansion-like homes. To exacerbate problems, the property owners around the lake have clear cut or significantly reduced the natural plant and tree growth in exchange for wide swaths of lawns and beaches.

These actions have made a tougher Shoreland Protection Act a necessity in order to maintain the habitats that support families of loons and other aquatic species. Fortunately, the New Hampshire legislature stepped up and revised the act, closing several loopholes and requiring a state permit for all construction work done within 250 feet of a shoreline. Here and here are links to discussion forums relating to the act.

It is unfortunate that the legislature is now considering pushing the start date back to July 1 although the landowners and builders have legitimate concerns. They cannot reasonably be expected to comply with a law that’s parameters have not been finalized less than two weeks before it was to be implemented. Perhaps the real question that needs some investigating is why didn’t DES finalize the rules sooner?

Update to Winnipesaukee speed limits

Two quick updates on my previous Winnipesaukee speed limit post.

First, here’s a slightly more detailed Associated Press story on the subject.

Secondly, a greater environmental impact of the legislation may involve emissions. The lack of a speed limit attracts large cigarette boats which are less efficient than traditional pleasure craft (and tend to produce larger wakes). Additionally, boats generally obtain better mileage at slower speeds, assuming the vessel has reached plane.

Winnipesaukee Speed Limit Bill Passes House

According to a Union Leader story, a two year trial speed limit bill for Lake Winnipesaukee passed the New Hampshire House of Representatives today. It now moves to the Senate.

If approved, the bill would set speed limits on the state’s largest lake at 45 miles per hour during the day and 25 miles per hour at night beginning in 2009, according to its text, found here. Since it is only a two year trial, the bill would expire in 2011.

Before I go further, I should state my family owns property on an island on Winnipesaukee and I have spent much of my summers there.

That said, a speed limit is desperately needed as there are too many boats traveling too fast. The Union Leader said the bill "has been opposed by boaters and fishermen who want to get from one spot to another quickly. They argue the greatest threats to safety are not speed, but operator inattention and violations of safety regulations."

While this latter statement is true, as a boater, I am more than happy to only travel 45 miles per hour. If one goes faster, he or she could not possibly enjoy the spectacular scenery. More importantly, there are countless rocks hidden just beneath the water that, could rip apart a boat’s hull. Since not all are marked by lighted buoys (or buoys at all), they pose an additional danger at night.

The environmental aspect in all of this is shoreline erosion. I have watched wave after wave pummel Winnipesaukee’s rocky shoreline, especially during weekends and holidays in July and August, from boats going faster than 45 miles per hour. These waves erode the soil, exposing tree and plant roots and clouding the water, a source of cleaning and drinking water for many island residents. While this would not eliminate all large wakes (many are caused by cabin cruisers traveling slowly), it would be a great step towards limiting erosion.

I was surprised this argument was not discussed in the Union Leader story, as it has often been voiced by islanders. Perhaps since this broke during the day, they will have an expanded story in tomorrow’s paper.